Historical Materialism Joshua Cohen

On the Track of Reason Essays in Honor of Kai Nielsen

___

EDITED BY Rodger Beehler, David Copp, and Bela Szabados

Itjj

us/ -:5 'A~ Westview Press \I-" BOULDER * SAN FRANCISCO * OXFORD

I 10 Minimalist Historical Materialism Joshua Cohen

Drawing on an Enlightenment tradition of historical sociology, Karl Marx proposed a comprehensive theory of historical evolution with optimistic implications for the future course of that evolution.' What, if anything, is living in that theory and in the Enlightenment project it exemplifies? A principal attraction of G. A. Cohen's reconstruction of historical materialism lies in its contribution to addressing this question. 2 Self-con- sciously "old-fashioned" (Theory, p. x), Cohen's account of Marxism represents a sharp departure from the tradition of Western Marxism inspired by Georg Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness. Where LukAcs had argued that Marxism is fundamentally a matter of method- the dialectical method of affirming "the all-pervasive supremacy of the whole over the parts"3 -Cohen has emphasized the substantive content of Marxism, locating the "materialist theory of history" at its center. 4 According to Cohen's technological interpretation,historical materialism is animated by an optimistic vision of the broad patterns of social and political evolution. It seeks to explain those patterns by reference to the scarcity-reducing transformations of the "built environment" brought about by human labor5, and to the implications of those transformations for the structure of social order. And, drawing its prognoses from this explanation of the historical patterns, it predicts liberation from toil and from the social adversity consequent on the need for toil. In a nutshell, then, historical materialism embraces four principal contentions: Development Thesis: Human productive power tends to increase over time.6 Social Adaptation Thesis: Social arrangements "rise and fall" according to their contribution to the expansion of productive power. Abundance Thesis: The material adversity that humanity has faced throughout its (pre)history will eventually be overcome. Good Society Thesis: Because "social adversity [is a consequence of material adversity" (History, p. vii), the social adversity that we have faced throughout our (pre)history will eventually be overcome. 156 Joshua Cohen Minimalist HistoricalMaterialism 157 In the course of elaborating and defending this technological interpre- 7 interpretation of the notion tation of historical materialism, Cohen has also suggested some "refor- of fettering that makes two ideas at least initially plausible (History, pp. mulations" of historical materialism designed to address his own "reser- 109-110): (1) class societies will eventually fetter the forces of production; vations" about it (History, p. viii). I agree that the reservations are serious and (2) such fettering will result in a revo- lutionary transformation of the and propose here to examine the reformulations prompted by them. I relations of production. Proceeding from these requirements, Cohen will argue that the reformulated technological interpretation of historical rejects a conception of fettering in which social relations fetter productive materialism, even if true, does not have much power to explain historical forces just in case they cause absolute stagnation in productive development.' 2 change and does not lend much support to optimistic expectations about Instead he advances a relative 8 interpretation of fettering in the future course of social adversity. I do not claim that it is inconsistent which the existing relations fetter the forces when the forces do less with or irrelevant to more substantive historical theorizing with well than they would under an alternative set of opti- relations. mistic implications but rather that it is largely indeterminate Skipping interesting details about the role of static and dynam- and that the ic considerations interest of historical materialism is correspondingly diminished. in the interpretation of "do less well," we arrive at the proposal that the forces are fettered when I conclude that the technological interpretation of historical material- "the trajectory of output levels is less high than it could be" ism has, once more, reached a dead end. Human beings and our social (History, p. 119). When it is, a new system of property relations emerges that promotes world could be such that determinate material conditions impose inter- the higher trajectory. As Cohen points out (History, p. estingly tight constraints on forms of social order. But the problems of 119), the content and the explanatory power of the claim that formulating a plausible theory that expresses this idea suggest property relations adapt to the requirement of that we inducing the highest are not and it is not. If the Enlightenment project of optimism-supporting trajectory of output levels depend on the explication of the notion of a "trajectory historical theorizing can be sustained at all, it needs richer foundations of output levels." He suggests that the relevant notion of output may than are provided by the central idea of the technological interpretation: not be captured best by the idea of gross national product and may require instead a that human social relations must adjust to accommodate the growth in more "strongly qualitative" human productive power.9 conception of the "standard of living" (History, pp. 120-21).13 Reformulated to accommodate this proposal, historical materialism would hold that social relations fetter the productive forces and so can be Indeterminacy I: Fettering expected to be replaced when they generate a lower standard of living- a less good The historical materialist project is to explain the "way of life" (History, p. 121)--than some alternative set of evolution of social relations.' 4 interaction by reference to changes in the material constraints on such This "standard-of-living" interaction. Cohen has proposed two main reformulations of historical conception of fettering has one central virtue. By affirming that property materialism, each with important implications for this project. The first, relations change when their change is required for inmmediately addressed to Marx's notion of "fettering,"10 speaks general- a better way of life, it incorporates the optimistic expectations of historical ly to the question How should we characterize the evolving material con- materialism directly into the formulation of the theory. But it also faces two difficulties. First, its straints (the expanding productive power) to which social interaction content is not at all clear and its consequences must adapt? The second, which suggests restrictions on the explanatory for historical materialism as a framework of historical explanation are correspondingly ambition of historical materialism,1i speaks to the question ust how con- uncertain. Second, it suggests, without much elaboration, an account of straining on the forms of social order are the material foundations of history whose main thrust is significant- ly different from the specifically social interaction? In this section I will briefly discuss the former, technological interpretation of historical and in materialism. Here the next section I will examine the latter in some detail. I will focus on the first of these concerns, postponing discussion of the second until 5 Elaborating the Social Adaptation Thesis, historical materialism the concluding section of the chapter.s Putting to the side important questions claims that the pattern of control over productive resources ("the social about the discount rate to be applied to future improvements in relations of production," or "property relations") changes when the evaluating alternative trajectories of output, we face two existing pattern of control impedes or imposes "fetters" on productive issues in understanding and assessing the standard- development. How is the idea of fettering to be interpreted? Given the ot-living conception o tettenng. n tne first place, there are issues about the interpretation of the notion background commitments of historical materialism, what is needed is an of an improvement in an individual's standard of living. For example, does more work and more pay represent 158 JoshuaCohen Minimalist HistoricalMaterialism 15V

an improvement in standard of living? Because historical materialism Indeterminacy II: The Scope of Explanation'6 does not suppose that the preferences of individuals settle this question, We come now to the second reformulation. Cohen distinguishes two how are these issues to be interpreted? Second, we need a way to evalu- within the Marxist tradition associated with different answers ate the standard of living under alternative distributionsof advantage, an tendencies to the question How much does historical materialism need to explain? issue that is particularly important in view of the conflict-ridden charac- An inclusive tendency seeks materialist explanations for as wide a range of social change. For example, does a society have a higher standard ter of social phenomena as possible. By contrast, the restrictive tendency- of living if it has a higher average level of advantage, even if it also is asso- r - * < _ ... - and, in particular, the minimalist refinement of it that I will eventually ciated with a greater dispersion of advantage? Or a higher sum of advan- focus on-travels light. Less ambitious in its explanatory claims, mini- tage, even if the average is lower? Or a higher minimum level of advan- malism carries only the baggage necessary to defend the core theses of tage, even if the peak falls? Or does achieving the highest standard of historical materialism. living only require movement to some position on the Pareto frontier? Cohen embraces the restrictive tendency. Before examining the details Answers to these questions about distribution carry important impli- of that embrace, I want to digress briefly from the main line of argument cations for the explanatory power of historical materialism, for its plausi- just long enough to disagree with a view that is suggested in Cohen's bility as a theory, and for the historical optimism that it is meant to sup- account of the motivations for minimalism. port. Suppose, for example, "the highest trajectory" is explicated as "some trajectory on the Pareto frontier." Then the explanatory power is diminished. Suppose instead that it is explicated as "the trajectory with Digression:Religion and Identity the greatest sum of advantage." Then the plausibility is not very great, Cohen presents restricted historical materialism as a natural way to and the foundations for optimis may be rather weak, because-as m handle the characteristic neglect by Marxist philosophical anthropology countless criticisms of utilitarianism and other sum-ranking ethical con- the fundamental human interest in self-identification and the common ceptions have noted-it may not be very good news that social relations of by historical materialism of, among others, religious are selected according to the sum of advantage that they produce. downplaying responses to that interest. The inclusivist response to this alleged down- So the first source of potentially significant indeterminateness in Cohen's reformulation of historical materialism lies in the indefinite playing is to try to explain the content and Importance or, tor eX4Inpl , in terms of dominant social relations. By con- characterization of the material constraints-the trajectory of output lev- religious self-conceptions commit to a positive theory about self-con- els-to which societies are, according to the Social Adaptation Thesis, trast, the minimalist does not allows that their content and development is bound to adjust. Various responses to this problem are available. It ceptions and in particular not fixed by material or economic constraints. Granting con- could, for example, be argued (not very promisingly, I think) that a more commonly to patterns of human self-understanding, the mini- determinate notion of the standard of living is unnecessary, because the siderable autonomy insists only that they are incapable of altering the basic tendency main social changes that historical materialism has sought to explain malist growth.17 So if new forms of self-understanding are (including the development of class divisions and the emergence of capi- to productive liberate productive potential-if, for example, productive talism) come out as improvements on any reasonable way of making the required to can only proceed if people come to regard themselves as funda- notion more precise. Or it might be argued that there is an interpretation growth individual choosers whose social bonds are all voluntary of the notion of an improved standard of living that is reasonably defi- mentally those new forms can be expected to emerge. nite, that fits the main fixed points of historical materialism, and that pro- undertakings-then of my digression is to register disagreement with the produces a plausible account of history. I do not see much reason for confi- The point of religious conviction lie in concerns dence about this. In any case, in the absence of a proposal, the posal that the anthropological roots the fundamental interest in answering the question Who substantive commitments of reformulated historical materialism are about identity in in identity is fundamental and that importantly indeterminate, it has limited power as an explanatory theo- am I? I agree that the human interest probably more commonly, church affilia- ry, and its support for the optimistic expectations affirmed in the religious convictions-and, it. But religious convic- Abundance and Good Society theses is at best uncertain. tion-do sometimes provide a partial answer to tions seem to me to be better understood as responding to a different set of human concerns focused on the meaning and value of life, to such 160 Joshua Cohen Minimalist I istoricalMaterialism 161

questions as What's the point, anyway? and What, if anything, can I hope undeterred by the risk for three reasons. First, minimalism remains faith- for? rather than Who am I? In short, in addition to fundamental human ful to the "master claim of historical materialism," which is that "it is in concerns about what we are able to do, and who we are, there is a further the nature of the human situation, considered in its most general aspects, matter of "what, if anything, it all means." If Marxist philosophical that there will be a tendency for productive power to grow" (History, p. anthropology emphasizes the first issue, and the Durkheimian tradition 158). Indeed, because minimalism is simply an elaboration of that master emphasizes the second, a central feature of the Weberian tradition is its claim, it would only be defeated by what defeats the master claim, and so emphasis on the third. it is the final fall-back position for the defender of historical materialism. Second, I think that certain features of Cohen's view (spelled out below) suggest that he is prepared to embrace minimalism when it parts compa- Minimalism ny with restricted historical materialism; that is, he appears not to treat If we return now from motivations to substance, minimalism princi- materially inconsequential changes in economic relations as creating pally affirms that productive power tends to grow and that that tendency problems for historical materialism. Finally, my criticisms of minimalism to growth is autonomous. That is, non-material conditions (social rela- focus on its limited interest as a theory of history. But those criticisms tions, religion, politics) can neither explain the tendency of the produc- depend on a set of claims that, if true, also provide evidence against tive power to grow nor stand in the way of that growth. Because of this restricted historical materialism; they raise doubts about the interest of affirmation of the autonomy of the tendency to productive growth, the minimalism and about the truth of restricted historical materialism. So it minimalist argues that when non-material conditions do foster the is not an option to agree with the criticisms, but then to dismiss them as growth of productive forces, that fostering is itself explained functionally irrelevant to restricted historical materialism. in terms of its contribution to the autonomous tendency to productive With minimalism, then, we have a second source of indeterminateness development. But beyond this commitment to a material explanation of in historical materialism, this time located not in the characterization of those non-material conditions (forms of property, religious ideas) that the material constraints on social interaction but rather in the account of are required for material development, minimalism itself has no theoreti- the precise limits imposed by those constraints. In particular, because the cal commitments. It imposes no constraints at all on the explanation of material constraints may well be satisfied by a wide range of social, polit- those aspects of social life hat are not mandated as solutions to the mate- ical, and cultural forms, and because minimalism makes no prediction rial problem. about just which of those forms obtains, minimalism may leave a great 9 This sketch of minimalism departs in one important way from deal about society and politics unexplained.l Cohen's characterization of restrictive historical materialism. To explain How disturbing this is (in fact, whether it is disturbing at all) depends the difference I need first to distinguish the materialbasis of a society from on the extent and significance of what is left unexplained. Intuitively, no its economic structure.8 Thus, the material basis of a society is provided one will be troubled by the inability of a general theory of history to by the productive forces available to it, and the economic structure is the throw light on the exact size of the House of Representatives (435 mem- pattern in the distribution of control over the productive forces. When bers) or why some capitalist democracies have systems of proportional we put this distinction to work, then, Cohen's restrictive historical mate- representation while others have winner-take-all electoral systems. rialism affirms that "the material [basis) explains the economic Istruc- However, the absence of an explanation of the Reformation would seem turec" (History, p. 159, n.8). Minimalism, by contrast, requires only that to be an important limitation, as would a failure to explain the emergence the material explains the economic when the economic has material con- of regular elections organized around competing political parties. These sequences-that is, when the economic shapes the trajectory of the pro- phenomena are, in Max Weber's phrase, of great "cultural significance," ductive forces. So restrictive historical materialism is a more substantial and so we may be troubled by a theory of history that has no explanation 2 0 doctrine, supplementing minimalism with the substantive thesis that of them. But restricted historical materialism (and minimalism as well) changes in economic structure only occur when such changes are rejects explanatory demands that are imposed in the name of such judg- 2 required for the development of the productive forces. ments of importance. ' In the rest of this section, I will focus my discussion on minimalism. I Restricted historical materialism is called restricted because it restricts itself acknowledge that this strategy invites the following response: "Inter- to explaining those non-economic phenomena which possess economic rel- esting, but irrelevant to anything that I wrote or now believe." I am evance, but there is in restricted historical materialism no suggestion that a 162 Joshua Cohen Minimalist iistoncal Materlalism

phenomenon is in some general sense important if and only if it is econom- social relations rise and fall as a consequence of the development of the ically important.... Unlike inclusive historical materialism, the restricted productive forces. If this contention is understood to imply that the fet- doctrine says nothing about economically irrelevant phenomena (History, tering of productive forces is causally necessary for changes in the social pp. 173-74). relations of production, and not only that social relations give way when is not committed even So minimalism disavows the aim of explaining phenomena that can- they do fetter productive forces, then minimalism materialism," and not be accounted for by reference to material constraints, even if the phe- to it. For it is no part of the "master claim of historical in social relations do nomena have very great cultural significance. Stipulations about the so no part of minimalism, to insist that all changes 22 To use the terminology intended scope of a theory are entirely legitimate. But given its under- affect the basic trajectory of the productive forces. that all economic changes lying aspirations, historical materialism may not be able to live with this I mentioned earlier, it is no part of minimalism important. But if there are stipulation. For the looser the material constraints-that is, the more (in social relations of production) are materially historical materialism diverse the range of social conditions that satisfy the constraints-the materially unimportant economic changes, then So, for example, mini- less important is the historical materialist thesis that non-material phe- itself imposes no constraints on their explanation. in fundamental nomena are constrained to adjust to material circumstances. Minimalism malism is consistent with the view that some alterations -are driv- could be true but of limited interest if the materially irrelevant properties property relations--changes that are materially unimportant unconstrained) evolution of reli- of social systems were of great importance-and not simply "in some gen- en by the autonomous (i.e., materially by autonomous exercises of brute power eral sense" of "importance" but from the concededly relevantstandpoint of gious or philosophical ideas, or or by autonomous political strug- the nature and extent of "exploitation, unfreedom, and indignity" and of in service of an interest in domination, on choice. the prospects of overcoming "social adversity" (History, p. vii). Reducing gles aimed at the removal of constraints minimalist view in his sketch of "the end- exploitation, relaxing social and political constraints, and limiting the In fact, Cohen suggests this 23 history" in Theory (pp. 197-201). He indignities that people are made to suffer are all humanly important; a less nuances of pre-capitalist class plausible case for the view central concern of historical materialism is to provide insight into the argues there (correctly, I think) that there is no than another (e.g., slav- determinants of these humanly important matters. But minimalism has that one pre-capitalist form (e.g., serfdom) rather form is required by the level of nothing to say about these phenomena when they fall outside the man- ery) obtains in a certain place because this for example, it date of material constraints-about materially unimportant emancipa- development of the productive forces (Theory, p. 200). So, to the devel- tions from enslavement, or materially unimportant improvements in dis- seems implausible that serfdom is better suited than slavery that tributional fairness, or materially unimportant extensions of political opment of the productive forces, and as a consequence implausible slavery because rights, or materially unimportant transformations in received concep- the colonate of the late Roman Empire replaced Roman that slavery had tions about gender, or materially unimportant reductions of constraints serfdom broke the fetters on productive development 24 this change was, from the per- on sexual expression. So if such matters do indeed often fall outside that imposed on Roman agriculture. But if indifferent (just a mandate, then so much the worse for minimalism. spective of productive development, a matter and so would be But do they? "nuance"), then minimalism "says nothing about it" would, for exam- To suggest some support for an affirmative answer I will discuss two equally at home with any explanation of it. Minimalism the autonomous evolution of examples. The first is focused on explaining pre-capitalist development, ple, be unembarrassed if it turned out that the transfor- the second on the emergence of capitalism. I should say in advance that Christianity or of Stoicism made the decisive difference to although the issues that I raise here are common themes in discussions of mation of agrarian social relations. materialism can live classical historical materialism (I have chosen the examples largely for On the minimalist interpretation, then, historical that reason), they are extensions of the topics that Cohen discusses in comfortably with quite drastic limits on Its explanatory ai ltiul,:,allf,S, only when those rises History, and not the immediate focus of the papers on restricted historical to account even for the rises and falls offorms of society I and falls have important effects on material development. Some will be materialism. i troubled by what appear to be massive limits on the capacity of this view to explain what are commonly understood to be important, interesting, Endless Nuances and world-historical phenomena. Even putting such preconceived to the side, however, suppose (as I First, consider the claim asserted in the Social Adaptation Thesis that understandings of what is interesting 164 Joshua Cohen Minimalist I listoricalMaterialism IASI

assume Cohen does) that serfdom was an improvement over slavery ment-is as follows. At a certain stage in the development of the produc- with respect to unfreedom and indignity (abstracting from the complexi- tive forces, their further growth requires among other things an increase ties of exploitation). If it was, then the decline of ancient slavery was in the scale of units of production, a pooling of productive resources 25 humanly important, whatever its material significance may have been. including labor. In principle (i.e., abstracting from historical background And if historical materialism promises to provide a theoretical account of conditions), this growth might proceed along a number of different social the determinants of humanly important historical changes-an account paths. People might, for example, genuinely choose to pool their that might serve as the basis for optimism about the future course of resources because they expect material improvement or hope to enjoy the social adversity-then we will be disappointed with the minimalist inter- company, or they might lack alternative ways to keep themselves alive, pretation of it. or they might pool resources in response to the direct use of violence. The actual path depends on circumstances, and in particular on the The Case of Capitalism: More Nuances? antecedent property relations, that is, on the prior form of distribution of control over the factors of production. Consider next the implications of minimalism for explaining the emer- In the case of the evolution of capitalism in England, the crucial factor gence of capitalism. Here the issues are more complicated and subtle, channeling the development of the productive forces and growth in scale and so I need first to set out some background. along a capitalist path was the antecedent existence of small-scale agrari- According to Theory, capitalism arises because a level of productive an property, of a class of "free peasant proprietors" controlling land, development is reached such that capitalism is required to unfetter the labor, and tools and comprising "the immense majority of the popula- productive forces (Theory, pp. 197-201; History, pp. 155-56). Thus, capital- tion." 27 Optimal for small scale production, this system of "absolute ist property relations are mandateO by the level of productive development ownership" 28 by peasants brought the productive forces to a level at itself, and not, for example, by the cnjunction of that level with antecedent which their further development required increases in scale. 29 But small- social relations, or politics, or religion, or culture. In fact, one distinction scale, private ownership could not itself accommodate the achievement between capitalism and pre-capitalist class societies is that the explana- of scale economies, because it "presupposes the fragmentation of hold- tion of its emergence is independent of the path leading up to it; prior his- ings, and the dispersal of the other means of production." 30 Furthermore, tory is washed out, because the productive forces themselves impose the it prevented the necessary increases in scale from proceeding along other particular form of social relations. Here we have a very strong assertion of than a rcanitalit nath If thp irrt nrdit-rs startd fram a vrstom of the predominance of material factors in explaining social evolution. individualized control over the principal factors of production, their only Whatever the merits of this view, Marx appears to have rejected it. His realistic path to cooperative labor had initially to feature the disposses- rejection is suggested most strongly in a pair of letters that he wrote late sion of the producers from their land (either by force or through their in his life on issues of Russian political economy. There Marx dismisses inability to compete) and then the recollection of the producers into larg- the view that every society must experience capitalism. He denies that he er units of production through the purchase of their labor power on the advanced "a general historico-philosophical theory" in Capital or that the market-that is, a path eventuating in the formation of capitalism. 31 argument there about the origins of capitalism committed him to such a A crucial point of contrast 26 with the Russian case lies in this prior exis- theory, not, it must be said, because he entertains the possibility that tence in England of small-scale agrarian property, that is, of individual- Russian culture might represent a permanent obstacle to the develop- ized control over the forces of production. In the Russian case, an ment of the productive forces. On the contrary, his contention was that antecedently communal form of agrarian property created the possibility Russia's agrarian property relations would permit it to develop the pro- of an alternative path of economic development based on the "rural com- ductive forces without capitalism, and that the agrarian property rela- munity."3 2 The communal form was compatible with a variety of paths tions in Western Europe had precluded the development of the produc- of development and did not exclude the evolution of agrarian capitalism; tive forces on a non-capitalist basis. it also permitted the large-scale cooperation essential to the development What is most important for the purposes of the discussion of minimal- of the productive forces to proceed without an antecedent dispossession ism, however, are not Marx's conclusions but the reasons for them. A of agrarian producers and the creation of a labor market.33 Thus, Marx plausible reconstruction-plausible both as a representation of Marx's emphasizes that his argument in Capitalabout the "historical inevitabili- view and as an approach to the issue of alternative patterns of develop- ty" of the development of capitalism was "expressly limited to the coun-

t 167 166 Joshua Cohen Minimalist f istoricalMaterialism

tries of Western Europe." And he says as well that the "reason" for this lim- imposed by the level of productive development but a consequence itation was that the "western movement" involved "the transformationof instead of the requirements of productive development given the prior oneform of privateproperty into anotherform of private property" and that the system of property relations39 Does this path-dependence raise a prob- development of capitalism in Russia would require an initial transforma- lem for historical materialism? It depends on the version of historical tion of "common property into private property."34 materialism. The contrast in agrarian property relations is, of course, not the only Suppose, as Cohen suggests in Theory, that historical materialism is important point of difference. Late nineteenth-century Russia also had required to explain the development of capitalism-and not simply the available to it the productive forces created by Western European capital- evolution of some set or other of social relations that permit the develop- ism. Underscoring the importance of this difference of "historical con- ment of large-scale production and growth in the forces of production- text," Marx says that "the contemporaneity of capitalist production- and that it is required to conduct that explanation solely with reference to provides it [Russia] with the ready-made material conditions for underlying facts about the productive forces. Then there is a problem. large-scale co-operative labour organised on a large scale."35 For what is explained by the facts about the productive forces alone is But it does not follow from this acknowledgement that Marx did not the emergence of capitalism but at most the emergence of some sys- believe after all that capitalism was the only social framework for the tem or other of property relations that would permit an increase in the development of the productive forces, given the state of those forces in scale of production. the sixteenth century and abstracting from the antecedent form of agrari- But minimalism suggests an alternative strategy. Holding fixed the by refer- an property. In fact, the evidence suggests that he did not. When, for project of explaining materially important social changes solely example, he states his "reason" for thinking that Russian development ence to the constraints set by the forces of production, minimalism may did not have to be capitalistic-the reason that I quoted in the previous discharge historical materialism itself from the responsibility of explain- paragraph-he refers only to the differences in property relations and not ing the development of capitalism, requiring only that it explain the to the advantages of late developers.3 6 Furthermore, the letter in which (materially relevant) emergence of some form or other of social relations he states that reason went through three earlier drafts and was addressed that encourages the growth in scale required for material development. to the question: Does the argument in Capitalabout the origins of capital- It is of course open to the minimalist to supplement this explanation ism imply that the Russian commune was "condemned to perish by his- with an account of the emergence of capitalism in particular-rather than, tory"?3 7 Marx begins each draft with the same answer as in the final ver- for example, state-owned farms or peasant cooperation-that draws on sion: The argument in Capital about the "historical inevitability" of a factors other than the level of development of the productive forces. capitalist phase of development carries no implications at all for the via- Here, Marx's explanation, which emphasizes the prior system of proper- bility of the Russian conunune because that argument was meant only to ty relations, would emerge as one candidate. But minimalist historical show the inevitability of capitalism given an antecedent system of private materialism is designedly ecumenical and in fact equally at ease with agrarian property. He does not say that the argument carries no implica- explanations of the specifically capitalist channeling of economic devel- tions because it was confined to an account of the social preconditions of opment in early modern Europe that draw on a familiar set of historical productive development given a lower level of development than Russia and/or cultural and/or political factors-the peculiar configuration of could achieve by importing Western technology.3 8 class power in Western Europe, economic rationalization emerging from Let's assume that Marx's argument is right and that different systems the autonomous evolution of Christian views of salvation, a conception of agrarian property create different possibilities for subsequent econom- of individuality whose provenance lies in Greek antiquity, the feudal dis- ic development. The argument is plausible and significant; a natural persion of political power and autonomous concentrations of urban extension of it--though an extension that Marx might not have been wealth in the interstices created by that dispersion, the availability of the happy with-is that diverse histories of agrarian property relations pro- commerce-friendly tradition of Roman law, limitations on the power of duce importantly diverse forms of capitalism, with minifundia economies the English state consequent of the failures of Tudor absolutism, the providing especially favorable social settings for the eventual emergence Reforma tion-inspired redistribution of monastic lands in England, Italian of social democracy. On this assumption, then, we have a major social banking techniques, and so on. change-the emergence of capitalism in Western Europe-that is not, as But although mintmalism nas no protvitell :trust The urn... i Cohen suggests in Theory, a path-independent reflection of requirements explanations, the theory itself is of limited interest. The burden in the 168 Joshua Cohen Minimalist Historical Materialism 70

explanation of the origins of capitalism is not carried principally by the weak constraints that material development imposes on social relations, material constraints but instead by the non-material and non-economic it is not clear how, if at all, the embrace of restrictive historical material- filters that limited the way that those constraints could have been satis- ism enables us to understand the determinants of exploitation, unfree- fied under the circumstances. Add to this the further assumption-which dom, and indignity. As a result, it provides limited support for the pre- was a central point of Marx's letters on Russian development-that dif- diction that humanity will free itself from "social adversity." ferent social relations that are able to increase the scale of productive Cohen's reformulations of the technological interpretation of historical cooperation and thereby develop the productive forces have different materialism strike me as well-motivated responses to reasonable doubts implications for the concededly important matters of exploitation, about and unclarities in the earlier formulation. But the resulting view unfreedom, indignity, and social adversity. Because minimalist historical seems to explain little and to provide at best thin support for historical materialism has nothing to say about these matters, it does not say optimism. enough about what is humanly important. Now the suggestion: I have expressed some doubts about the interest In concluding the discussion of these two cases, I want to emphasize of minimalism, largely by reference to the fact that the humanly relevant that I do not mean simply to be noting some entries in the register of pos- properties of social systems may well be materially irrelevant. But in my sibilities-that restrictive historical materialism could have very limited discussion of fettering, I noted that Cohen advances a very expansive explanatory power because of the wide range of material-constraint-sat- understanding of "output" according to which a society generates a isfying social relations and that it could fail to support the optimism asso- higher level of output if it produces a higher (or better) standard of liv- ciated with classical historical materialism were those diverse social rela- ing, a "better way of life" (History, p. 121). Suppose that we insert this tions to exhibit humanly important differences. Rather, I mean to suggest proposal into the minimalist understanding of material relevance and that these are, as a matter of fact, ;ery plausible claims that raise serious that we include such considerations as unfreedom, indignity, and social problems for the interest of minimalism. adversity 40 in the "strongly qualitative" account of the evaluation of ways of life. We then end up with a form of minimalism affirming the material relevance of any change in the distribution of control over Conclusions resources that bears on freedom, dignity, and social adversity (and on By way of conclusion, I want to offer a summary and a suggestion. whatever else enters into the evaluation of a way of life, and that holds First, a summary. I began by listing four elements of the technological that such changes occur when their occurrence would result in a better account of historical materialism. Consider how matters now stand with way of life. respect to each of them. I have not explored this form of minimalism here because it seems 1. Reformulated historical materialism remains committed to the clearly more expansive than the view that Cohen describes as "restrictive Development Thesis, but the proposed reformulation in the notion of fet- historical materialism." Furthermore, it would need considerable refine- tering renders the content of that thesis uncertain because of the indeter- ment to make it less Panglossian and more believable. But I mention it minateness in the conception of a trajectory of output levels. here neither to criticize its excessive optimism nor to suggest that it 2. As to the Social Adaptation Thesis, minimalist historical material- resists more precise and plausible formulation. Rather (fulfilling a ism embraces the idea that if productive development demands a basic promise that I entered earlier), I want to draw attention to the extent of social change-if a rise and fall is needed-then such change can be its departure from the technological interpretation of historical material- expected to occur. But it rejects the view that a necessary condition for ism. In fact, the form of minimalism I just sketched is, more or less, a the occurrence of a change in property relations is that the change is restatement of the common intuition or vision that animates all the classi- mandated by the development of the productive forces, thus allowing cal progressive philosophies and theories of history: a vision of historical that even some changes in property relations may fall outside its scope. tendencies to human improvement-to a "better way of life" (History, p. 3. As to the Abundance Thesis, absent further specification of the 121)--and of social transformations as accommodating those tend- notion of output, it is not clear why the historical pattern of increases in encies. 41 The technological version of historical materialism represents output supports a generalization that predicts an eventual overcoming of one proposal about how to turn that vision into a more systematic theory material adversity. distinguished from others by its emphasis on the progressive human 4. Finally, concerning the Good Society Thesis, given the potentially mastery of nature, its contention that social relations adapt to that 171 170 Joshua Cohen Minimalist I istoricalMaterialism provided names for the increasing mastery, and its affirmation of the substantive thesis that such 6. "Development Thesis" is Cohen's term. I have mastery is closely tied to human improvement more generally (see other theses. 7. One paper, co-authored with Professor Will Kymlicka (chapter 5 of Theory, p. 147). responds to some criticisms that I made in a review of Theory in the may not be problems with the Ilistory), But the problems with that version of Philosophy, 79, 5 (1982). The focus of my criticism was Cohen's con- by the Journal basic vision. In the face of those problems, those who are attracted tention that certain general asocial facts-that human beings are rational and vision should resist responding to difficulties in historical materialism by intelligent and face conditions of material scarcity--generate the tendency for adopting the strategy of substance-reducing revision. Instead, we should productive power to grow asserted in the Development Thesis. Cohen and consider whether there are more promising renderings of the optimistic Kymlicka persuade me that I overstated my criticisms of that contention. But the conception of history. Such renderings would have three main features positive case that they present is not persuasive, nor does it conform to the pro- that distinguish them from the technological interpretation of historical posal in Theory. For example, they point out (see pp. 101-2) that our material materialism: (1) they would expect less from the material constraints on environment might be such as to impose on us repeated interactions of a kind in which human interaction in explaining historical evolution; (2) they would that lead rational and intelligent agents to cooperate in circumstances development. I agree that it might be, acknowledge (as Marx did in his account of the sources of capitalism in cooperation is necessary for productive historical evidence might lead us to the view that it actu- Europe) the importance of the "dead hand" of the past in chan- and I agree as well that Western the argument for the Development Thesis depends on a (3) they would acknowledge ally is. But if it is, then neling the course of such evolution; and fact about the environment beyond simply the presence of material of fettering) the non-mate- further asocial (following the hint in Cohen's new conception scarcity. Scarcity does not itself impose on us interactions of the stated kind. The rial character of human interests in reducing unfreedom, exploitation, fact of scarcity does not impose conditions of interaction in which mutual cooper- and indignity, and they would attach greater importance to those inter- ation is the only equilibrium; it does not even produce conditions in which mutu- ests-greater importance both in evaluating the standards of living made al cooperation is more likely than conflict. So in order to provide support for aso- available by alternative social arrangements and in explaining the evolu- cial premises that jointly imply the Development Thesis, the historical evidence tion of new frameworks of social order 42 would need to convince us that there is some further asocial fact (in addition to rationality, intelligence, and scarcity) about the non-built environment that has in the past worked to exclude human societies that would have obstructed possible Notes material development and that can be expected to do so in the future. Here I I would like to thank Robert Brenner, Paul Horwich, Joel Rogers, and Erik remain unconvinced. term "much" (as well as the 'largely" of the next Olin Wright for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. 8. The precise force of the sentence) will, I hope, become clear over the course of the article. 9. By "richer foundations," I mean foundations that supplement the con- 1. Marx emphasizes the central place of those optimistic implications in, for that material development can disrupt received social constraints. example, a letter to Joseph Weydemeyer in 1852 and in the preface to his 1859 tention llistory, chap. 6. Contributionto the Critique of PoliticalEconomy. See The Marx-Engels Reader, second 10. See 9. edition, ed. Robert Tucker (New York: Norton, 1978), pp. 4-5, 220. 11. Ibid.,chap. On the absolute stagnation conception, it is not especially plausible that 2. Presented in Karl Marx's Theory of I lstory: A Defence (Oxford and Prince- 12. in a rigid class society. ton, 1978), hereafter cited as Theory, and History, Labour and Freedom: Themes fettering will occur even to develop such "strongly qualitative" accounts From Marx (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), hereafter cited as History. 13. For proposals about how of development, see Amartya Sen, 3. Georg Luk6cs, History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge: MIT Press, and to integrate them into the study Holland, 1985); and Partha 1971), p. 27. Commodities and Capabilities (Amsterdam: North Extent of Its Realisation in Poor Countries," 4. Hereafter, when I use the term "historical materialism" I mean to refer to Dasgupta, "Well-Being and the 1990): 1-32. Cohen's account of history. I will not address the question of whether Cohen has Economic Journal, 100 (Conference exactly endorse or reject this idea. What he does say provided the best rendition of Marx's view, though I do think that he captures a 14. Cohen does not if one thinks that capitalism develops the productive fundamental strand of that view, and a strand that must play a central role in any (History, pp. 120-21) is that can reasonably think that socialism plausible account of the political attraction that Marxism had. forces more rapidly than socialism, then one of the way that socialism uses productive 5. More precisely, by reference to the development of the knowledge is preferable to capitalism because rejects GNI' as a measure of output in favor of some more qual- required for scarcity-reducing transformations of the environment. See Theory, power only if one to him because he does not rule it out as an p. 41. 1owe the clarification to Erik Olin Wright. itative conception. I attribute the view option and because in its absence it would be even less clear what the content of 172 Joshua Cohen Minimalist I listoricalMaterialism 173 historical materialism is (because there would be several optional interpretations formulation, "the slave rose in status to become an unfree serf. At the same time of the fundamental idea of fettering, each carrying its own indeterminateness). the colonus fell in status and became a serf too." See his "Social Causes of the But it may be that the issues I raise are objections to a view that Cohen does not in Decline of Ancient Civilization," in The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient the end endorse. Civilizations, trans. R. I. Frank (London: New Left Books, 1976), p. 400. In view of 15. See in particular, the concluding two paragraphs of the chapter. this double movement, an overall evaluation of the transformation in agrarian 16. 1am indebted to Debra Satz for many discussions of the issues that I take class structure in the late Empire demands much more than a simple comparison up in this section of the chapter. For her treatment of them, see "Marxism, of enslavement and enserfment. I relegate this notice of the complexities to a Materialism, and Historical Progress," in Analyzing Marxism: New Essays on note, however, because a proper treatment of them would not alter the basic Analytical Marxism, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementary volume 15 point in the text. (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1989), pp. 402-09. 26. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Correspondence, second edition, 17. As Engels put it in a letter to Joseph Bloch, "amid all the endless host of trans. 1. Lasker, ed. S. Ryazanskaya (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), p. 313. accidents ... the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary." See The In the sketch that follows I draw on Marx's two letters on Russia in Selected Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 760-61. Correspondence, pp. 311-13, 339-40, the drafts of those letters in Late Marx and 18. Here I follow Cohen's discussion in Theory, chap. 6, noted at History, p. the Russian Road: Marx and "the Peripheries of Capitalism," ed. Theodor Shanin 159 n.8. (London: Routledge, 1983), on his account of the origins of capitalism in Capital, 19. 1 say that it may explain very little, not that it leaves a great deal of room vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976), chaps. 26-32, and on for choice, because I assume that there are non-material constraints on choice. his discussion of forms of agrarian property in Capital, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress 20. For Weber's view, see his "'Objectivity" in Social Science and Social Publishers, 1971), chap. 47. I do not mean to endorse the details of Marx's argu- Policy," in Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. Edward A. ment but only his contention that the prior system of property relations is a cen- Shils and Henry A. Finch (New York: Free Press, 1949), pp. 49-112. In this essay tral factor in the explanation. Furthermore, my use of the letters on Russia is Weber condemns the "materialist conception of history"-which he appears to exclusively concerned with what they tell us about Marx's account of the origins identify with the view that Coherl calls "inclusive historical materialism" (see p. of capitalism-whether capitalism is required in order to develop the productive 68)--while embracing the importance of what he calls the "economic interpreta- forces. So nothing that I say here implies any disagreement with Jon Elster's con- tion of history." According to the latter, economic factors are commonly impor- tention that these letters offer a very weak argument about an alternative path to tant causes and consequences of culturally important phenomena. Cohen also communism. See Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, rejects the materialist conception of history, but his restricted historical material- 1985), pp. 307-09. ism is a more substantive theory about historical evolution than is Weber's eco- 27. Capital, vol. 1. p. 877. nomic interpretation. 28. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 877. 21. Of course, rejecting the demand that the Reformation be explained 29. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 926-27. because it is culturally important is not the same as either denying the need to 30. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 927. explain the Reformation or lacking an explanation of it. It might be true (as Erik 31. A proper discussion of these issues would require a defense of this con- Olin Wright put it to me) that "most phenomena that have great cultural signifi- tention in particular. One especially needs to explain why, given the benefits of cance also either directly affect the growth of the productive forces or affect the productive cooperation, it was nevertheless unrealistic for peasants to appropri- reproduction of the relations of production, and thus fall within the ambit of ate those benefits by voluntarily pooling their productive resources. restricted historical materialism" (personal communication). Whether this is true 32. The drafts of Marx's letters emphasize as well the differences between is a substantive question, and I will makes some remarks about it later in the Russia's agrarian commune and more archaic forms of communal property and chapter. argue that the former is suited to a modern economy in a way that the latter are 22. Thus, the linguist might agree that the poetic use of language is of great not. See Shanin, Late Marx, pp. 103-04, 108-09, 119. importance but at the same time exclude poetry from the ambit of linguistic theory. 33. Ibid., pp. 110,121. 23. "Nuances" is tendentiously minimalist terminology. 34. Ryazanskaya, Selected Correspondence,pp. 339-340. In a book published 24. See Pierre DockEs, Medieval Slavery and Liberation, trans. Arthur eighteen years after Marx's letters, Lenin charted the ways in which that transfor- Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), esp. chaps. 2, 3. mation to capitalist agriculture had in fact been proceeding, noting, "Despite the- 25. The formulation in the text is grossly oversimplified. The evaluative ories that have prevailed here during the past half-century, the Russian commu- issues surrounding the decline of ancient slavery cannot be settled by reference to nity peasantry are not the antagonists of capitalism, but, on the contrary, are its a simple comparison of slavery and serfdom, not least because the decline of deepest and most durable foundation." V. I. Lenin, The Development of Capitalism Roman slavery was associated with (and, in fact, arguably contributed to) a seri- in Russia: The Process of the Formation of the Home Market for Large Scale Industry ous deterioration in the conditions of the free peasantry. In Max Weber's classical (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956), p. 173. More generally, 174

Lenin emphasized the similarities between the Western European and the Russian patterns of agrarian development "notwithstanding the tremendous peculiarities of the latter" (p. 3). 35. Shanin, Late Marx, p. 121; cf. also pp. 102, 110. 36. For a classical statement of those advantages, see Alexander Gerschen- kron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962). 37. Shanin, Late Marx, p. 99. 38. Ibid., pp. 99-100, 105, 117-18. 39. In fact, it is not at all clear that a general underlying tendency to productive development plays any role at all in the explanation. For the competition fea- tured in the prior system of petty commodity production seems itself sufficient to account for the development of the productive forces. So it might be that small- scale private property both induces the development of the productive forces and then selects for capitalist property relations as the successor system once those forces come into conflict with the framework of small-scale ownership. For the purposes of my discussion here, it is unnecessary to defend this view. 40. 1 omit "exploitation" because I do not think that Cohen wants to be so expansive as to include it. The reason is that exploitation is a matter of injustice (History, p. 303), and he does not think that the presence of injustice itself enters into the evaluation of the standard of living (this is implied by footnote 15 on p. 121 of History, together with the sentence to which it is appended). However, it may be that exploitation is 'an injustice-maker and a lower-quality-of-life-maker and that it enters as the latter. I will drop the issue here, because my argument does not depend on the resolution of it. 41. For an outstanding discussion of common features of different conceptions of historical progress, see Theory, chap. 1. 42. For proposals along these lines, see, for example, Jiirgen Habermas, 'Towards a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism," in Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1979); and Roberto Unger, False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy, Part I of Politics: A Work in Constructive Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 246-340. Also, see Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, "Knowledge, Morality, and Hope: Chomsky's Social Thought," in Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments. ed. by Carlos P. Otero. London: Routledge. vol. 3 (forthcoming).